do you ALWAYS carry ?

[Guest looneeetunes]

carry everywhere not posted except work

[Mike.357]

no real need to answer this, heh

[Guest EasilyObsessed]

I'm in Florence, KY (Cinci, OH area) this week for a class, I didn't carry due to the fact that the airline industry doesn't look kindly on folks carrying guns to the airport! I will be in Louisville next month, I am driving, I will be carrying.

Other than that I carry, except in places prohibited by the law.

Actually, traveling with a firearm isnt that difficult. You just need to declare when checking your baggage and make sure it is in a hardshell, lockable box, and you cant carry ammo with it.

[Marswolf]

It is my understanding that there used to be a "safe harbor" provision in Tennessee gun law that basically kept you from being subject to criminal charges if you employed justified deadly force with your handgun in a location where that handgun should not have been carried to begin with.

Example: You're eating at Logan's Roadhouse and someone comes in and starts shooting the place up. You shouldn't have your own handgun with you since they serve alcohol for on-site consumption, but you smuggled it in anyway. You use your handgun to take down the killer, saving not only your own life but the lives of many others.

The law used to be such that you would not be charged with the misdemeanor offense of carrying where it was prohibited.

BUT...

It was the opinion of John Harris, esq. that the recent amendment to the Tennessee Code Annotated that more or less granted us the "must not retreat" Castle Doctrine sort of provision that we no longer have that assurance.

The new TCA statutes assert that you can only employ deadly force so long as you are not in the commission of a crime!

Since carrying where prohibited is a crime, would you still be granted safe harbor for defending yourself? Or would the Court bury you beneath the jailhouse because you were illegally carrying at that moment?

See, this is why TCA needs a serious overhaul in regard to gun laws.

Where on earth did he come up with that??? :confused:

The "Castle Doctrine" provision of TCA 39-11-611 says you do not have to retreat if you are not engaged in unlawful activity. So, it simply does not apply if you are doing something illegal.

But....

The provision preventing you from being charged has absolutely nothing to do with 39-11-611. It is covered under:

39-17-1322. Defenses. —

A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim.

That provision of TCA has not changed one letter. It is absolute as long as the defense is justified.

So, if you are illegally packing in Applebee's and someone comes in to shoot up the place, you may blast him and not be charged if the defense of yourself and others was justified. You just can't claim that Castle Doctrine made it unnecessary for you to retreat (which was never part of TCA anyway).

However...having the illegal weapon might eliminate your civil protection against a suit normally prevented under TCA 39-11-622.

39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability. —

(a) (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who:

(i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and

(ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

(iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

( The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

( The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201.

So, you still can't get away with collateral damage.

[SHbicycle]

I carry all the time even in the shower.

Bond, James Bond

[Guest Phantom6]

I was in a local sports bar a while back and ran into an off duty law dog I know. Actually, she's nowhere near a dog but I digress. She leaned over my shoulder and whispered this question in my ear:"Are you carrying?" I asked her if there was trouble afoot and she said "no" to which I responded "well, we all know that carrying in a place that servews alcohol by the drink would be illegal." She winked at me and said "Good Answer".

As a state certified instructer I need to set a good example for my students at all times- and keep my certifications.

[Guest canynracer]

You are essentially asking people to incriminate themselves, which isn't a good idea.

I carry anywhere that I am legally allowed to do so.

ditto....

oh yeah, and I dont speed cause its dangerous.

[Fallguy]

Where on earth did he come up with that???

The "Castle Doctrine" provision of TCA 39-11-611 says you do not have to retreat if you are not engaged in unlawful activity. So, it simply does not apply if you are doing something illegal.

But....

The provision preventing you from being charged has absolutely nothing to do with 39-11-611. It is covered under:

39-17-1322. Defenses. —

A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim.

That provision of TCA has not changed one letter. It is absolute as long as the defense is justified.

So, if you are illegally packing in Applebee's and someone comes in to shoot up the place, you may blast him and not be charged if the defense of yourself and others was justified. You just can't claim that Castle Doctrine made it unnecessary for you to retreat (which was never part of TCA anyway).

However...having the illegal weapon might eliminate your civil protection against a suit normally prevented under TCA 39-11-622.

39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability. —

(a) (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who:

(i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and

(ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

(iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

( The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

( The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201.

So, you still can't get away with collateral damage.

Let me address this in reverse order...

First you are liable for "collateral damage" even if you are packing legally and act legally. 39-11-622(a)(1)(.

Now the other point. As in my above post the Castle Doctrine 39-11-611 says three times "Notwithstanding 39-17-1322" In parts 39-11-611((1), 39-11-611((2) and 39-11-611(d)(3)

I admit I'm not sure what "Notwithstanding" means in this context. Does it mean 39-11-1322 does or does not apply? If it means does not, then one could say even if you just parked illegaly (double parked, etc...) and a car jacker attacks you could not use deadly force since you are "engaged in unlawful activity".

[cadillacdude1975]

LEOs having to witness misdemeanors is under challenge here in Chattanooga. seems that a local attorney got a speeding ticket from one of our many traffic cameras. he has retained legal council and is fighting the ticket. from what i have been reading on it, things are not looking too good for the city. the camera is not an LEO so therefore the misdemeanor was not witnessed by an LEO. the camera that caught him has generated on average 200 tickets a week. that would suck for the city if he wins his appeal. that is alot of cash they are going to loose.

[Marswolf]

LEOs having to witness misdemeanors is under challenge here in Chattanooga. seems that a local attorney got a speeding ticket from one of our many traffic cameras. he has retained legal council and is fighting the ticket..

Keep me up on this. I hate those Big Brother traffic cameras and would love to see them go down in flames.

No I have not gotten a ticket from one.

[Guest newsphotog]

I know I'm contributing to the thread wandering off topic but I couldn't resist.

It looks like you are not the only one in TN who wants em' going down in flames.

I caught this story this morning.......30-06 vs. red light camera.

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=7418260

[Guest jcramin]

An officer doesn't need to see you

Blow the stop sign on my bus and if I get your plate number, I'll turn

it in to the THP and you WILL hear about it

JCE - Bus Driver Extraordinaire

In order for something to happen you must take an officer to my home and you must do a citizens arrest then you must go to court in order to prosecute me. It wasnt ME speeding and passing, but this scenario just accord about 2 weeks ago and I was involved with the police over it. it wasnt worth my time to get more involved since the officer also told me that the Judge doesnt like dealing with people passing buses and he dismisses them all the time.

[TGO David]

Notwithstanding is the one word that makes me very nervous in that verbiage. I'm not so sure I'd want to be the first person to test the waters just to see what it means either.

[Im Neero]

that would suck for the city if he wins his appeal. that is alot of cash they are going to loose.

I have a feeling if he wins his appeal that they will just change the ordinance and keep using the camera.

[Guest jcramin]

I know I'm contributing to the thread wandering off topic but I couldn't resist.

It looks like you are not the only one in TN who wants em' going down in flames.

I caught this story this morning.......30-06 vs. red light camera.

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=7418260

Clark now faces a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle.

GEE that makes it worth the time and effort to prosecute HUH

[Fallguy]

LEOs having to witness misdemeanors is under challenge here in Chattanooga. seems that a local attorney got a speeding ticket from one of our many traffic cameras. he has retained legal council and is fighting the ticket. from what i have been reading on it, things are not looking too good for the city. the camera is not an LEO so therefore the misdemeanor was not witnessed by an LEO. the camera that caught him has generated on average 200 tickets a week. that would suck for the city if he wins his appeal. that is alot of cash they are going to loose.

I think he may have a chance. I did hear about this, and the guy shooting the one up.

I remember seeing a news piece from another state once (No, for a change I can't link to it...lol) where these cameras were being put in. The cameras were linked back to the P.D. where an officer watched the monitors. They said they had to do that for the ticket to be legal.

[Fallguy]

Notwithstanding is the one word that makes me very nervous in that verbiage.

Me too!!

If it means that 39-17-1322 no longer applies....the only good thing about that is, that since it is so all encompassing, it might be easier to get changed.

Just ask the legislature, "Do you mean that if a person is standing under a 'No Standing' sign or parked in a 'No Parking' area, they can't defend themselves?"

[Mike.357]

started another thread

[molonlabetn]

Those evil hunting rifles! Ban them! They can be used to disable law-enforcement safety monitoring systems!

[towerclimber37]

Notwithstanding is the one word that makes me very nervous in that verbiage. I'm not so sure I'd want to be the first person to test the waters just to see what it means either.

*sigh* can't they just make the wording simple so that folks like me can understand it? thats why I think all lawyers should hang! they come in, muddy up a simple concept with 200 dollar words that are AMBIGUOUS and then expect folks like us to figure it out.

[Mike.357]

here is an idea.

Do away with carry permits. Do away with BS gun laws that only enable the criminals. Leave people the hell alone to live their life.

In other words anyone, can carry anywhere.

[Guest GregRN]

here is an idea.

Do away with carry permits. Do away with BS gun laws that only enable the criminals. Leave people the hell alone to live their life.

In other words anyone, can carry anywhere.

I like the way you think. Also, enable people to use a bit of common sense. For example, don't try to prosecte every jaywalker like Barney; use your head and try to understand the intent like Andy.

[Im Neero]

muddy up a simple concept with 200 dollar words

Like "nugatory?"

[towerclimber37]

yep! pretty much!